August 28, 2008

6:35 Central Time. I tuned in in time to see the end of Will.i.am's "Yes We Can," but no we can't perform that song in a big arena. The great video has an elegance and intimacy and a crafty, spontaneous connection to the recorded Obama speech that is a far cry from the kind of anthem rock that works in a stadium. And we will see, as the night wears on, what works and what does not in this setting.

*Joe Biden showed exactly why Americans are rallying behind the Democratic ticket to deliver the change the country needs.

* Last night, Joe Biden told it like it is. And everyone at the Pepsi Center—and around the nation—responded. He showed exactly why Americans are rallying behind the Democratic ticket to deliver the change the country needs....

I love all that "exactly." I mean, if I were speaking in reliance on those talking points and someone followed up with the question, "You say he showed exactly what we need, but what exactly was so exact about what he said?," I would melt into a quivering pool of jelly.

7:31: Stevie Wonder!

7:38: He's singing "Signed, Sealed, Delivered." The stadium looks great -- still in daylight -- full of people, all supplied with flags, so there's lots of waving of flags, which gives a nice energetic movement to the crowd shots. Stevie changes the words: "I know Barack Obama's gonna set this country on fire and a lot of people all over this place are gonna say ooh, baby, here I am...." By the way, that set doesn't look at all like a Greek temple, as the early reports said. Maybe they worked to tone down anything that was temple-like about it.

7:45: Al Gore! If only he'd won the presidency, Bin Laden would be captured by now. The great thing about losing is that you can say whatever you want about what you would have done.

7:51: I said above that I didn't think the set looks like a Greek temple, but I want to remind you that when I originally wrote about it, I said: "So is this stage set going to seem like a Greek temple, with Obama as some phony god — from somewhere in Europe — or is it going remind us of the federal government — with Obama looking simply presidential?" Yet look at this sleazy, lying, underhanded post at Crooks and Liars, slamming me this way:

Never let it be said that Republicans and their counterparts in the conservative blogosphere (yes, Ann “I Like To Drink Wine and Blog About American Idol” Althouse, I’m looking right at you) can’t attempt to manufacture a scandal out of thin air that shows just how stupid they are. ...

So Ann “Liberal Boobies Enrage Me” Althouse whips herself up into a righteous indignation, which is promptly echoed throughout the other sites. (I won’t dignify her with a link, look it up) How dare Obama? Is he trying to suggest that he’s a God or something??? The presumption! Do you see how messianic he is? His supporters are like a cult! (imagine her furious fingers typing away)

But see, here’s the problem, Ann. You clearly haven’t traveled. If you had actually ever gone to the seat of our federal government, Washington DC, guess what you’d see? Columns! Know why? Because most of our federal buildings were designed in an architectural style called…wait for it…Greek Revival. Which means, you know, lots of columns. Like the ones in the front and back of the White House–where Obama will reside in January, by the way. And the ones in front of the Lincoln Memorial, where exactly 45 years ago today, Martin Luther King gave a speech....

Uh, yeah, so you won't "dignify" me with a link because... why? Because it would show that I said all along that it could either look like a Greek temple, as Reuters reported, or it might look like federal government buildings, and we wouldn't know until we actually saw it. Nicole Belle, who wrote that post, is shamefully dishonest. She flaunts her dishonesty by not linking to the text she was writing about because it would show that her post is vicious character assassination. I associate Crooks and Liars with John Amato, who I think is a good person, and I call on him to do something about the sleazy post that is messing up his blog.

8:15: But I do agree with the statement: "Liberal boobies enrage her." My dictionary defines "booby" as: "1. A person regarded as stupid." (2 refers to a tropical seabird, which is probably invariably apolitical.)

8:18: Al Gore is still pontificating. Ah, now he's done. Sorry, I didn't say much about that speech. I was getting pissed off at the underhanded blogger who's been allowed to post at Crooks and Liars. Anyway. I'm over it now. The song playing Al Gore off the stage is "Let the Sun Shine In." I don't get it. If the sun shines in, it will add to global warming. They should have played something like this or this.

8:26: Hey, Biden is back. Why is he talking again? There should be no second orations. He seems to be setting up one of those sequences of ordinary people. If I couldn't pause the DVR and periodically fast-forward, this would be utterly intolerable -- even for me, loving to write, and knowing I have quite a few readers on this post. I find it very hard to believe anyone would watch this part of the show. But, okay, the throng in the stadium must be entertained. Maybe it's just perverse even to attempt to watch this part of the show.

9:00: An introductory film clip. Obama's mother said he needed to understand what it means to be an American. He only met his father once and "was shaped more by his absence than by his presence." His grandparents "weren't complainers." His mother saw his promise and did what she had to do: woke him up at 4:30 to teach him lessons. It makes me tear up to see the pictures of the mother, because she's not alive to see this. Very cute pictures of him as a teenager. Michelle is talking about how weird it was for him to be named "Barack Obama." "Barack Smith" or "Barry Obama" would be okay, but not "Barack Obama." But everyone called him "Barry" when he was growing up, so he must have thought it was an advantage to revive the unusual first name. His mother's death was one of the worst things that ever happened to him. (What were the other things on that level?) It made him realize that life is short and you need to work hard to achieve your goals.

9:11: (By chance, it's 9:11... in the Central Time Zone.) Obama ambles out. He's got a nice square-shouldered suit and a red tie. A flag pin! (Duh!) Flags everywhere, in fact. The background, in the close-ups, is not temple-like at all. It's peach-colored squares framed in dark wood.

9:14: "With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for President of the United States." Big cheers. A wide shot shows the glittering arena, which is not giving off any ominous night rally vibe (such as I've heard talk about).

9:16: Michelle, Malia, and Sasha — he's introducing them now — are wearing coordinating pink flowery sundresses. I like the way the 2 girls are completely different, the older one shyly ladylike and the younger one un-self-consciously cute.

9:20: He wants to keep the American promise alive. If we love the country, we shouldn't want "the next 4 years to look like the last 8." In an allusion to a TV show he probably watched -- his memoir says he watched a lot of TV with his grandfather -- he says "Eight Is Enough."

9:24: The bad economy -- but today's news was good -- is not just a state of mind and people who complain about it are not just "whiners." There is a tremendous stress on helping working people. I don't know that it's at all clear why Obama would help this situation, but he's certainly doing what he can to convince you he cares.

9:30: Good lord, Michelle's dress is completely encrusted with flowers. Are they 3-D? It's kind of making me sad. She's an accomplished professional woman, and it's as though they can't emphasize enough that she's a feminine, motherly helpmeet. And to have her dressed like the 2 little girls? Ooh. That twinges.

9:38: Equal pay for equal work. "I want my daughters to have the exact same opportunities as your sons." As if his daughters won't have far more opportunity.

9:41: He gets the biggest cheer of the night after saying he invites the debate over who will be the better Commander in Chief. "Don't tell me the Democrats won't keep us safe." He wants to restore the legacy of FDR and JFK. "I will never hesitate to defend this nation." But he'll make sure there is "a clear mission." "I will end the war in Iraq responsibly."

9:46: "Patriotism has no party."

9:48: "We can keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." All right, then! Can I have an AK-47? I'm not a criminal. He's trying to say we can accommodate gun rights and gun regulations, but he won't admit to anything near the level of gun regulation he'd support, so he ends up sounding silly.

9:57: He ends with perfect timing, after referring to Martin Luther King's speech, which was given 45 years ago. At that time, people could have reacted in a negative way to the "dream deferred." But they didn't. They were hopeful. And we can be hopeful too. Now Michelle and the girls come out, and there are some modest (and very smoky) fireworks. Now, Biden strides out, looking Clintonesque. Confetti falls. Red, white, and blue streamers. We see a long shot, and the brightly lit audience is full of waving flags. Joe Biden squats down and points around in a half circle, like a rockstar. Create excitement, he must be thinking. Now, the streamers hang droopily, and a bunch more people come out. Who knows who they are? More fireworks. Lots of blowing confetti. There isn't much loud cheering, and it's not just that the microphones are turned down, because I hear one guy yell "Our next President!" A sweet closeup of Barack and Michelle nuzzling. As they are walking off the stage, Obama pauses, turns and looks up and around. He claps for the audience, starts to leave, turns back again -- the moment of a lifetime is almost gone -- and claps one more time.

11:22: So was it an improvement to switch to the open-air stadium? I think it wasn't. The enclosed Pepsi Center preserved and amplified the crowd noise. During the tedious speeches in the last few days, you could hear the din of conversation. But for Obama's speech, the people would be paying rapt attention, and the cheers would have had an intensity in the convention hall that was not quite there in the stadium. Also, the background was much more vivid indoors -- a deep, electric blue. In the stadium, we saw a fairly dull background. It looked like a backdrop from a cheap TV studio. Because there's no roof on Invesco Field, we were deprived of the traditional massive cascade of balloons. The fireworks and the shooting streamers and confetti didn't have the classic look and over-abundance that we would have seen inside with balloons. (Balloons! I want balloons!) Finally, we lost the sense of fulfilment that comes when the man we've been celebrating for days finally shows up in the place where everyone's been talking about him. To make up for that loss, Obama put in a perfunctory appearance at the Pepsi Center last night, but that messed up the narrative arc. We should have been aching with anticipation tonight, but we already greeted him last night.

11:47: The best speech of the convention -- it's no contest -- was given by Bill Clinton. No one else came close for me. Second best: Joe Biden. At the next level, I would put Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I read nothing more than that which is italicized. Or perhaps more accurately, I understood nothing more than that. And then I stopped everything I was doing just so I could take you all to this very, very special place.

Ann constantly pricks at everyone's self-important demeanour. It's what she does as a blogger.

I don't know about that. She certainly hasn't pricked at your demeanor.

And I certainly hope she'll also point out how insipid the GOP's convention talking points (talking points are usually insipid - the idea is to hit the least common denominator) are during their convention.

This is unrelated, but there is -- to me -- something wonderfully American about the fact that one of our big political rallies is being held in a forum named after a soft drink company. The business of America is business, indeed.

7:03: The NYT published the Democratic National Committee’s talking points. Fun to read these things because they're so insipid:

It's not insipid. It's downright dangerous the way that the NYT and other leftist/liberal media outlets are waxing themselves arrogantly about how they are essentially in the tank for Mr. Barely. They've taken the 1st amendment and have used it as toilet paper and the rest of the public just sits idly by and shakes it's head disapprovingly and not take them to task for it. The only redeeming notion is that the NYT and other liberal/leftist media outlets are becoming unmitigated failures in the market and also in public opinion. They know it and so do we, but the difference between us and them is that we will watch people like pinchy and his ilk go down with the ship and attempt to call it noble.

*Joe Biden showed exactly why Americans are rallying behind the Democratic ticket to deliver the change the country needs.

Really? Joe Biden is now the standard bearer for the riveting reality he has bestowed upon the American people about the change the country needs? What is that change NYT? Where has it been elucidated? Where has it been defined? What is it's context? What is it's content? It's great to talk a good game about change. It's sounds great too. Change, change, change, change, and more change. Oh look, there is some change over here, some change over there, but no one knows what the change is other than the fact that it sounds really saccharine and will taste like it too.

In other words, Joe Biden didn't say a thing.

* Last night, Joe Biden told it like it is.

Really? He did? Not from how I heard it. I had the misfortune of watching Biden mumble and stumble his way through a speech that attacked GW's policies foreign and domestic, while seemingly neglectful of the fact that GW isn't running for President. While that might be stating the obvious, this type of lame rhetoric is only meat for the die-hards, but even they know it's mostly gristle.

And everyone at the Pepsi Center—and around the nation—responded.

Uh, not really. Most of the people when Biden came on got up and left. Those around the nation simply clicked to another channel or used your newspaper as fishwrap or to line their bunny cages with.

He showed exactly why Americans are rallying behind the Democratic ticket to deliver the change the country needs....

Delusions of grandeur. Oh how far you morons have fallen. Let's see what Mr. Barely pulls out of his hat tonight shall we?

Just how long have you been reading Althouse again? Because no one reading this blog just a month ago, can say this with a straight face.

I've been reading it off and on back to probably around 2004, though I certainly don't read every comment thread or posting. If you have an example of your demeanor being pricked by Ann, by all means, provide a link. If so, good for Ann, though she wasn't the main target of my quip.

As far as acknowledging it if Ann critiques GOP talking points as she has Democratic ones, I'll be happy to do so next week, assuming I'm in front of a computer at the time. Next week is a busier one for me than this one has been.

We start with McCain in Wedding Crashers, 'cause somebody on the left pointed out that he was in it as if that meant something, and frankly I don't remember him in that (even having seen the film way too many times) so for all I know he's doing cameos in hundreds of films and I'm just not picking him out....

Anyway.

Wedding Crashers starred Owen Wilson who was in Night at the Museum with Ben Stiller who is in Tropic Thunder with Tom Cruise who was in A Few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

I'd bet McCain's Bacon number is two, but I'm not the Oracle. Let's see how Victoria did it.

Hope you have a further happy commentating career on Althouse without my replies.

In other words, you don't have much to respond with at this time. Well, I've noticed you don't generally reply to anyone when your comments are taken apart and tossed off the side, so no big loss for me, I'm sure.

No matter, they say you learn something new every day and today I learned we’re no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I.

Seriously though, a full commitment’s what I’m thinking of.

Hey, would you get that from any other guy?

And now . . . for no good reason whatsoever . . . ladies and gentlemen, let me lay on you a so-so entertainer, not much of a humanitarian, and this cat weren’t never nobody's friend . . . Mr. Rick Astley!!!!!

I guess I'm too dense to discover on my own what the connection between this bit of convention blogging and feminine protection have to do with each other. 7:23 PM - "Ditto for me; couldn't have said it better...."

Ann..."I associate Crooks and Liars with John Amato, who I think is a good person, and I call on him to do something about the sleazy post that is messing up his blog."

Your blog is called "Althouse." It's written by Althouse. Glenn's blog is called "Instapundit." It's written by the Instapundit. Then there's the Volokh Conspiracy, written by volokh, and his co-conspirators. Perhaps you see the pattern. Now: Nicole's blog is called "Crooks and Liars." What did you think it was written by?

On a side note, regarding the twits at Crooks&Liars -- does anyone honestly fall for that "I refuse to link it but here's what it said" stunt? I would think we were years past the point at which a refusal to link was viewed with anything other than suspicion, but I still occasionally see people (and not just lefties) try to get away with it.

If that was your original post, she is assassinating your charachter. But then again, I accused you of being racist based on something posted that pissed me off, and I don't really think you are racist. People get pissed off and lash out, do you really care about such a trivial thing? It seems she's lashing out at everything but your original post anyway.

She's obsessed with you.

The original Reuters story was a bullshit story though, printed for no other reason than to stir up trivial controversy. Anyone looking at the pictures knew it would look federal, not greek. Why the eff would Obama want to appear before a greek temple? A ridiculous story, another reason to loathe corporate media.

Knowing that he truly believes Hitler was a man of great courage is, to put it mildly, less than reassuring.

all his facts and insights are brilliant.

I especially liked his "insight" that it was a "fact" that the gas chamber at Treblinka couldn't really have worked.

Buchanan's latest argument, that Hitler wouldn't really have tried to exterminate all the Jews if the war hadn't forced him into it, is neither brilliant nor insightful. It is sheer idiocy, lifted unaltered from neo-Nazi apologetics, devoid of any factual or historical support.

With all due respect, Simon, that's not much of a debunking. It is pretty obvious that the "90%" claim is meant to refer to issues Bush actually had an opinion on. Yes you could lower the percentage by including all the countless insignificant votes Senators cast, but the "90%" meme is meant to convey the idea that Bush and McCain are largely on the same page legislation-wise. Which, all spin aside, they mostly have been.

Because tax dollars, which every liberal knows are free, will substitute.

• Will eliminate cap gains taxes for small businesses and startups

Most small businesses and startups have little or no spare capital for investment.

• Stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas

Pure union pandering. Corporations act to remain competitive, not out of malice toward local labor.

• Cut taxes for 95% of working families

The top 10% of earners already pay 68% of the taxes. The lower 50% only 3%. More pandering to the "rich people are evil" crowd.

• End dependence on oil from the Middle East in 10 years

Just plain meaningless crap.

• Tap natural gas reserves

"Tap" apparently means something other than "drill", which we know is evil.

• Invest $150 billion over the next decade in renewable sources of energy

This is called subsidizing economically failing approaches and appeasing the greens. As though the government is an efficient maker of markets. And, where's the money coming from, along with massive increases in social program spending he also advocates?

A helluva program, I'd say, if you are an ignorant True Believer. Your Messiah is counting on your blind stupidity. Worship Him, but no thinking allowed.

LOL - Obama just said he's ready to have a debate. That's the biggest lie of the night. Obama turned down debating McCain. If you tell a lie and 80,000 people cheer, does that make you a lying fuck, or just a lying douchebag?

McCain agreed with Bush 90% of the time? It was 95% last night with Biden. At least it's going down.

Well, McCain and Bush were watching the convention together, and Bush turned to McCain and said "that was a fine speech Joe just gave, don't you agree?" and then McCain was all like "no". Then there was the argument over what toppings to get when they sent out for pizza and it was all downhill from there.

Bird & Fortune portray the halfwit politician George Parr all the time.

LOL!

Personally, I prefer The Two Ronnies doing Margaret and Denis...

I just did a little walk-by of my entire condo floor, in case my original impression was flawed. Nothing. Dead silence. No TV sound.

I'm reassured that even in this den of inequity that is South Beach, with our wall-to-wall European carpeting (my condo President is French, the VP is from Spain), that we somehow are either too pooped to listen, or disinterested.

Jim, what do you want me to say? I'm just responding in realtime - and laughter - at this pathetic excuse for oratory. Have you seen that episode of Family Guy where Peter ruins Lois play, and it's so bad that it defies the power of rational deconstruction, leaving Lois with nothing more to say than "this blows"? In regard to this speech, I'm where she was with regard to "Peter Griffin presents a Peter Griffin production of the King and I."

Just got back from dinner, decided to skim the liveblog instead of actually watching. And now I'm going to stop and go to bed early. Seems like a better use of my time! He's not changing my vote anyway :)

Ben (The Tiger) said... "I'm not his target audience -- I've been a safe vote for McCain since sometime in 2007."

Well, I'll concede this much, and maybe this will help explain it to Jim: this speech isn't aimed at people like me. Perhaps I don't get it as a result of that. But here's what I'll say: if this speech is a success in the sense that it moves its target audience, and you're a member of that audience who is moved - man, you're pathetic. What weak minded sap is moved by this I don't know.

The Uniter seems to be giving one of the angriest and combative acceptance speeches I've ever heard. There is no mirth or good-humored optimism on display. Rather, there seems to be an undercurrent suggesting revenge.

Jim, that depends. If they made a claim that was obviously and verifiably false, I'd think that was quite an apt term. And by the way, you're missing some important context. That was the very worst speech I can remember hearing, but I thought that Bush's acceptance speech four years ago was pretty crummy, too. So I guess I have Bush Derangement Syndrome too, if that's the measure.

Jim,I don't know if I've ever used that particular term, because it isn't in my usual vernacular, but I would certainly apply it to him if it was. I'm a conservative. What about Bush's administration do you think conservatives are happy with? If I was to play word association about Bush, the words that would come up follow this general pattern: "incompetent," "moron," "quisling," &c. No one is more keen for the Bush administration to give way to a conservative administration than am I.

And as for Obama's rhetorical skills, I just reject that. I've seen a lot of Obama speeches, one of them in person, and his reputation is misplaced. He isn't a good orator. At best he's mediocre. And as to that abortion of a speech tonight, the most that I can say about it is that in the long and distinguished canon of American speeches, it was certainly one of the most recent.

Seven - I hope that time won't tell. But I fancy it will. Obama has never shown any particular desire of inclination to stand up to his base - his pandering to the center on FISA notwithstanding - and his bae wants it.

"Simon said...What about Bush's administration do you think conservatives are happy with?"

Nothing. But when some of us made even conservative arguments against Bush and his apologists were called deranged. (For example, I dared comment at your site one time pointing out that Bush's policies were leading to an expansion of government and "conservatives" were just forgiving it because he was good on taxes. I was called deranged by one of your co-bloggers. Your co-blogger is a douchebag.)

This reminds me of something I said at Amba's earlier in the week. What is patriotism? It seems to me that Democrats reject the charge of patriotism because they say that they want to perfect America while the charge is hurled in the first place because if you really love your country why do you want to fundamentally change it? I have to admit that I incline towards the latter view. Suppose your daughter brings home a boy, and this boy says he loves your daughter, but he deeply resents her past, strongly disagrees with her politics, and wants to change everything about her. Wouldn't you doubt how and whether that boy really loves her?

Victoria, I would, but neither Indiana nor Illinois are marginal states. Illiois will go for Obama, and Indiana for McCain. It's easy to say that Illinois has been running on half a Senate delegation since Obama's been running, but that isn't fair. their other Senator is Dick Durbin, so really they've been running on zero adequate Senate representation, and they seem to be okay with it.

Well, for once me and Bill Kristol are on the same page (just flipped over to Fox to see their commentary). This was a very good speech. It hit the right marks emotionally without being overwrought, provided enough specifics without getting overly wonky, and hit McCain on some of the concepts his campaign is trying to promote. Very well done indeed. And I'm saying that as a former Hillary person who didn't vote for him in the primaries, like Fen. (Fen, my man, are you out there?)

Also, Simon, Obama has agreed to participate in debates. Just because he didn't choose to do so on McCain's terms doesn't mean he's not participating in them. Unless he backs out of the debates he has committed to, there isn't much of a leg to stand on there.

I've never been a hardcore Obama supporter; I voted for Hillary in the primaries and believe that Obama is sometimes too arrogant. Nevertheless, you guys are ridiculous in denying that this was one of the best political speeches of the past years. Even Bill Kristol (!) felt it was an excellent speech. You are so blinded with your hate of Democrats that you can't even evaluate the effectiveness of the speech. Mark my words: barring something extraordinary, Obama just won election right there.

Jim, I don't remember that, but I would imagine that it was Tully - he really comes down like a ton of bricks when he thinks you're wrong, including on me sometimes, and honestly I think that's okay most of the time. Not always at the time, I must admit. ;) If you're going to argue with him, you - and that you includes me - really have to have your facts right and sound argumemts to make. He comes on strong, but I (usually) like that about him. Come on back - the water's scalding, hot but you get used to it and I proimise, it's good for you in the end. ;)

On the substantive point, I agree that there are certainly legitimate criticisms of the administration that are shot down in a haze of overzealousness to repudiate BDS. Nevertheless, while I don't always agree with Althouse, I don't think that changes the fact that there are lots of people out there - Nicole, for example - who are just deeply addled with ADS.

At the end it moved from pomp and grandeur to bling and grandiosity. For all that, there are good things to be said about Obama as a man, and many good things to be said about his candidacy and success. Americans lead experimental lives, and Obama is a successful experiment....I'm still going to vote for McCain, but Obama deserved his night.

somefeller said..."Simon, Obama has agreed to participate in debates. Just because he didn't choose to do so on McCain's terms doesn't mean he's not participating in them. Unless he backs out of the debates he has committed to, there isn't much of a leg to stand on there."

He refused to do townhall debates, he's refused any other kind of debates except the traditional puff pieces with PBS staff lobbing softballs at the Democratic candidate, and I stand by my earlier prediction that he'll back out of the remaining two when the first is a diasaster, to cheers of adulation by supporters who will rationalize this away.

That's why I think that the substance was crap. It's not why I think the speech was crap. I think that the speech was crap because it was badly written and badly delivered. The substance was crap, too, by the way, in case that wasn't clear.

"I am 100% positive that you'll see a spike in Obama's ratings after this 'rotten' speech."

Looking at how many albums Britney Spears has sold, there's certainly a market for crap in this country.

Simon, if he backs out, you'll have good cause to criticize him. Unless and until that happens, you're criticizing him for something he hasn't even had the chance to do yet. And the traditional styles of debates have served us well as the norm in the TV era, so I don't see the reason to glamorize the town hall style of debate, which more often than not brings in teary-eyed questioners (I'm thinking right now of the guy who asked Bush 41 about being the father of the country and the woman who asked Kerry about her faith and abortion) that waste everyone's time.

This was an assertive, confident speech in the mold of Roosevelt. You don't like the substance because it goes right at the heart of Republicans' false argument that Democrats are soft on national security. Obama demonstrated how Democrats will win this argument by attacking it head on. The economic and social parts of the speech was very centrist. Overall, great speech, both on style and on substance. I feel much more confident that Democrats will win in November.

OMG. I just now got a wild bug up my bum and made scones. I just tossed a bunch of crap in a bowl and BANG! Dayit iz. There was a Fuji apple just sitting there so I put that in. Since I put in an apple, that demanded I put in some cinnamon. Since it then had cinnamon it needed something to balance so I added alspice and nutmeg. And since I used baking powder along with baking soda for double rising action it needed some acid to activate the soda so I squeezed in some lime juice which was also just sitting there. Then I carefully turned it to thick sludge and baked it at an arbitraryly high temperature for a made-up length of time. Man, I tell ya, sometimes I'm assume. I mean, awesome.

Now I can read the transcripts of speeches by people not of the people without paining my ears. My ears just said, "thank you."

"You don't like the substance because it goes right at the heart of Republicans' false argument that Democrats are soft on national security."

As near as I can tell from this speech, Obama is going to salvage our world wide credibility by apologizing for our freeing of two nations and sixty million people and the subsequent effort we've expended (in company with over thirty other nations and NATO) to foster democracy where it has never existed.

He was against the war in Iraq. Iraq, in the eyes of the Clinton administration and the action congress previous to W's first term, was slated for regime change as a goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Granted, the legislation and Clinton's signature was just window dressing; nobody expected action from a Democrat president.

It's how they do foreign policy...

He can try STRONG diplomacy against Iran after hiking his skirts and abandoning Iraq if he wants to. The Iranians will be too busy supporting their proxies in Lebanon and Iraq to pay much attention. Unless he shoots a few of them.

But once again, we get back to that STRONG foreign policy, which is Democrat speak for "surrender".

Helicopters have filled the sky. They're dreadfully noisy for this time of night. Reminds me of AF bases, except more fun because I know so many undesireables are leaving. Haven't heard any fireworks, which is odd because the stadium is visible from my balcony. But I haven't bothered to look. Maybe they're silent fireworks.

don't like the substance because it goes right at the heart of Republicans' false argument that Democrats are soft on national security. Obama demonstrated how Democrats will win this argument by attacking it head on.

What? Do you forget that Obama opposed the surge... he wanted to withdraw immediatly from Iraq. Obama favored defeat rather than trying for victory. Imagine if we would have been defeated in Iraq. The world would be a disaster. A speech isn't going to cover up the ugly fact that Obama blew the most important foreign policy choice in the last 20 years.

FDR, JFK, Truman - they wouldn't have opposed the surge. They wouldn't have favored defeat over victory. Obama is soft on defense because he cared only about his own political future. Opposing the surge was popular at the time so Obama chose that route. He is a coward, which is why he is also weak on defense.

It was interesting to see that deadspot in the cheering when obama mentioned building more nuclear and clean coal. I was also struck by the new unword "Climate change" Wow, so lets cover both our bases if it gets really cold now. I'd really like to see him run again in 8 years when he's ready

Biden mumble and stumble his way through a speech that attacked GW's policies foreign and domestic, while seemingly neglectful of the fact that GW isn't running for President.

Has McCain renounced and denounced GW and his policies yet? Maybe at the convention? Even so, McCain sat in Washington for eight years, listening to that man speak -- you can't tell me it didn't rub off. And to think he exposed his children to W. administration policies.

Job well done, Obama. I thought it was fine. But no one in my house was jumping out of their seats. I wanted more, but you can't always get what you want, can you?

On the other hand...

I thought it was going to be horrible because everyone has been talking about how horrible it was going to be. You all should have just kept quiet because you ironically raised the bar on how shitty it would be so that even if it was only partially shitty, it would look like a success.

Which one of Roosevelt's speeches was it that said the best way to deal with Hitler was with "tough diplomacy", again?

You don't like the substance because it goes right at the heart of Republicans' false argument that Democrats are soft on national security. Obama demonstrated how Democrats will win this argument by attacking it head on.

He offered pablum. There was no substance. He slammed the Bush administration's Iran policy, saying you can't "deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington". His proposed alternative? "Tough, direct diplomacy" i.e. "talking tough", only I guess at a Geneva summit instead of in Washington. Wow. That's really impressive, Barack. I feel safer already. I'm sure the mullahs will feel much more threatened by empty threats from a Democrat than they were by empty threats from a Republican... or empty threats from the previous Democrat... or the two Republicans before him... or the Democrat before that. Or maybe he's not planning to just bully them? If so, what exact concessions to them does he think are on the table? Letting them blow up, say, 500 Jews a year instead of our current zero-tolerance policy for Jew detonation?

And what's his plan for Iraq? "Ending the war responsibly". More empty bullshit. Every politician in America -- hell every politician on EARTH, probably -- says they want America to end the war in Iraq responsibly, John McCain and George Bush included. So what, exactly, is Obama's idea of the "responsible" way to end the war? Again, nary a hint in the speech.

Oh, but he'll "restore our moral standing". Using his magic Black Jesus powers, presumably, since -- again -- he offers no details on how exactly he'll do this or, for that matter, what's wrong with our "moral standing" to begin with. To say nothing of the fact that only a moron would think John McCain doesn't care about America's moral standing, too.

This may have been a good speech; I wasn't the target audience, as I'm too good at seeing through bullshit. But the notion that it explained how Barack will do things better than Bush on defense is unadulterated bullshit. His entire defense plank, like most of the rest of the speech, amounted to "I can't say what I'll do, but at least I'm not George Bush".

Who's Hitler in this analogy? Is Russia's incursion into Georgia really supposed to equal the annexation of Austria?

Comparing Putin to Hitler is a big stretch, but not remotely as big as stretch as comparing Obama to Roosevelt or Kennedy. Although it is somewhat telling that he had to reach back nearly half a century to find a Democrat who wasn't a complete idiot on national defense.

I'd also add that Kennedy is an odd example for Obama to pick. Kennedy sent the first US troops into combat in Vietnam and launched a disastrous invasion of another country, Cuba, that did... what's that phrase? Oh yeah, "lasting damage to America's moral standing". At least among left-wingers. On the home front, he was also a good buddy of Joe McCarthy during the witch-hunt years -- crushing of dissent, anyone?

Elision is popular with dems, maybe? Something shoots through me when Biden says Lays and Gentlemen.

you guys look down on other Americans, like big balled Southerners

Had airconditioning not been invented, the South would be as backwards as Uruguay. Although the South had lured "cut and sew" businesses from the north previously, the Southern economy didn't really pick up till the 60s, when southern states offered tax holidays and the prospect of a low-wage union-proof work force to get northern industries to move.

Of course those jobs have since moved on to Mexico (thanks Clinton) and to Southeast Asia. So it's back to their historic industries of moonshine and tobacco.

Obama resorts to the 90% meme debunked here

Debunked? Whenever W. expressed an opinion on a bill, McCain voted W.'s way 90% of the time. That's good enough for me unless some mind readers can provide additional data.

Times when W. didn't give a hoot one way or the other must be excluded from the analysis. The times when W. kept his opinion to himself and his Creator can either be excluded, or assumed to follow the same pattern as the publicly disclosed ones.

CQ’s study recorded only votes taken by McCain where the President had an explicitly-stated view

why is it okay to drill for more natural gas, but it is not okay to drill for more oil?

Natural gas replaces home heating oil, which makes homes cheaper to heat and also makes more Diesel No. 2 available (essentially the same as home heating oil) without increasing oil imports while still lowering its price. In addition, natural gas is mostly methane which is CH3, which has no carbon bonds to break, so less carbon dioxide so less effect on global warming.

Obama turned down debating McCain.

Obama turned down town hall barnstorming with McCain, each in their own campaign bus, where the two of them would put on a good show every week in a different Knights of Columbus hall, or junior high auditorium.

it's perfectly reasonable that Obama isn't proposing to deal with anybody like you'd deal with Hitler.

So why bring up Roosevelt at all? If he's just saying that he promises to defend the United States in the event another nation declares war on us first -- well, no shit. Any President who didn't would be impeached and sent back to Kansas whether he came from there or not. What makes Roosevelt special is that he specifically picked a fight with Hitler and did everything he could to get America into a war in which America had absolutely zero national interest -- he chose the morally right path even though it was (a) contrary to American interests and (b) enormously unpopular. He got lucky in that Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on us after Pearl Harbor, and so people often forget that Americans were more opposed to war with Germany in mid-'41 than they are to war in Iraq now.

But let's say he wasn't proposing to deal with threats like Roosevelt did. Was he proposing to deal with threats the way Kennedy did? Massive nuclear arsenal buildup, nuclear brinksmanship with the rival superpower, invasion of weak enemy nations that pose no direct threat to America, sending US troops into a foreign quagmire... which of these policies is Obama admiring, exactly? Or was the "Kennedy" he was invoking the magical, post-assassination Kennedy that the Left actually grew to retroactively like and approve of?